The question cognitive science is trying to answer is that of how the mind works (neuroscience is trying to answer the question of how the brain works). It is a question without a current answer, no-one is 'replacing' anything, we're filling in gaps. Are you claiming that you already know how your mind works, do you think your own guesswork is somehow privileged and should be sacrosanct?

Nothing is sacrosanct in my shop, not even my nor your guesswork.

I think there are answers to those two questions. Biology tells us a humongous lot about brains and how they work, and more generally about how the body manages its information needs. And psychologists have become pretty good at understanding or at least at predicting, manipulating, and sometimes curing minds. Transactional analysis for instance does work reasonably well. So we do have some answers. We are making sustained progress, the way I see it, and I have been looking at this fields for a good 30 years.

All this to say that I am not a prophet of doom for neuroscience. I think we will end up cracking the mystery of the human mind, ultimately. And when that happens, it will be a great triumph for the human mind. It will of course NOT be a replacement of the human mind by some biological theory, just an understanding of the mind and its powers in terms of its biological foundations.

If only there were thousands of highly trained individuals who had decades of time and experience to put to finding out via careful experimentation that they could then publish in a series of papers and books so that people like you could read them and find out... — Isaac

Yes, and if all of them gave some thought to what they are doing instead of running around like materialist chicken, they would make faster progress.

even in this ideal situation, all you really get at the end is something equivalent to the state of the first subsystem. You'd still need to report on that somehow which is supposed to be subsystem 2's job. — Kenosha Kid

But what about inference? If a given subsystem only has the data that it has read the state of a prior system which itself had previously read a prior system, would it's Bayesian prior not be that it itself was in such a chain, having no cause to infer anything else? I guess I'm still not clear on why a system can't have inferences about itself. It can't confirm them, obviously, but I don't see anything intrinsically stopping it's own function and identity being the subject of one of it's algorithms, it would just have to infer the answer from outside data.

The map idea is the closest, since it reports on the function of the system as a whole, which is how cacheing works anyway. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Despite my theoretic fancies above I think this is still the most likely way interocepted reporting of brain activity is done. The working memory is delivered a précis of what just went on in the same way as memories are delivered, which would be much more like your map example. I still think, though, that the working memory could infer its own role from the input data and reports of the output without needing access to its own workings.

There's these no-go areas with no obvious reason to not go there, in fact really compelling reasons to go there. — Kenosha Kid

Religion, and pride. Probably.

I think there's something intrinsically private about the workings of one's brain. Subjects I've worked with have definitely fallen into two distinct camps when we disseminate results. Either "wow that's interesting" or a non-committal grunt which I've taken to mean "how dare you get inside my head". I worked primarily with belief formation. You can imagine how well that goes down sometimes.

Then again, there's also the 'expertise cost' effect. It's a hell of a lot easier to become an expert in some psycho-woo than it is to become an expert in neuroscience. I'm sure you must get the same in physics. Without a bit of discipline you've got two routes open to you - study like hell for eight years, be tested, fail, tested again, finally prove your worth and make it past your PhD, or... sit in your armchair eating crisps and spout whatever you happen to reckon because "it's all speculation anyway init"

if all of them gave some thought to what they are doing instead of running around like headless materialist chicken, they would make faster progress. — Olivier5

Well, I'll send as many as I can on to you so you can instruct them in 'The Way' and save them from their unenlightened chaos... hang on, I've heard this story before somewhere...

@Isaac

Who funds scientific research and who decides what avenues get funded?

Well, I'll send as many as I can on to you so you can instruct them in 'The Way' and save them from their unenlightened chaos... — Isaac

Just tell them that science is about minds understanding matter, not vice versa.

Who funds scientific research and who decides what avenues get funded? — Protagoras

Probably communists or some sect of paedophile cannibals.

But what about inference? If a given subsystem only has the data that it has read the state of a prior system which itself had previously read a prior system, would it's Bayesian prior not be that it itself was in such a chain, having no cause to infer anything else? I guess I'm still not clear on why a system can't have inferences about itself. It can't confirm them, obviously, but I don't see anything intrinsically stopping it's own function and identity being the subject of one of it's algorithms, it would just have to infer the answer from outside data. — Isaac

If I understand you right, that's basically what explainable AI is supposed to do: use Bayesian inference to give a likely cause of your output. Which is fine, because at no point is the system actually giving a description of its own state. Funnily enough I was chatting to my new boss about doing exactly this.

I worked primarily with belief formation. You can imagine how well that goes down sometimes. — Isaac

Haha yeah! Reminded me of Brideshead Revisited: "Show me your marvelous artworks. Let me explain them to you!"

@Kenosha Kid

You missed out capitalists.
After all a capitalist is a communist with a Walmart bag.

How would I trust my knowledge, if there were external influences on it not included in the constituency of the system? — Mww

Seems a bit extreme, but fair enough, life's rich pageant and all.

It is the case that sometimes third-party investigations reveal a physical discrepancy in the mechanics of the system, and sometimes even a rational article the system hadn’t presented to itself, re: “I never thought of it that way”. Even so, when presented with this missing piece, the system must still incorporate it into the compendium of its extant conditions, re: its relevance must still be understood by the system. If it isn’t, it has no power and thus cannot amend the system. — Mww

It's surprising how few people I speak to get this aspect of cognitive science, bonus points. I agree with the importance of understanding the evidence within the context of the narratives you have. It's 'objective' origin doesn't lend it any special status, it has to fit into the stories we tell just like any other insight.

There is absolutely no empiricism in cognitive metaphysics, it being entirely a rational study under the auspices of logic alone. — Mww

I disagree. What seems logical to you is an empirical finding from interoception. You find it logical that 2+2=4. That's not different than you finding the rocks are hard or roses smell sweet.

Hence.....for the duration of such temporality, their being missing has no affect. But I see your point. — Mww

Likewise.

I don’t care that there is something (chaotic signals); I want to know if that something is this or that (red, or, bacon, or, gunfire). — Mww

But surely it is either given that it is ("if it seems to me to be bacon then it is bacon") or you accept that things can seem some way yet turn out to be another. If this can be true of perception, then why not introspection? Or, answering my own question, are we back to 'any theory I can rationally maintain'? If so then my issue would be with holding the label 'rationally-acceptable (to me)' to be anything more than an empirical property of some thought. No different to sensing your toe is in pain after stubbing it.

What is "Honey-Do time"? — Isaac


Honey, do take out the trash, please?; Honey, do mow the lawn, please?; Honey, do the dog-poop pickup, please? Etc, etc, etc......... — Mww

Love it!

“...I can think what I please, provided only I do not contradict myself; that is, provided my conception is a possible thought, though I may be unable to answer for the existence of a corresponding object in the sum of possibilities....” — Mww

So... is the thought that some thought is a contradictory thought subject to the same restrictions?

Probably communists or some sect of paedophile cannibals. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah. Last funding meeting I attended was absolute carnage. After you've sacrificed your third virgin though it all gets a bit work-a-day...

If I understand you right, that's basically what explainable AI is supposed to do: use Bayesian inference to give a likely cause of your output. Which is fine, because at no point is the system actually giving a description of its own state. Funnily enough I was chatting to my new boss about doing exactly this. — Kenosha Kid

Cool. Maybe there's more mileage in it than just a theoretical possibility then. If AI can do it, it should be a walk in the park for wetware.

The naivety of the petty low grade scientist who thinks he works for some kind of "truth" and service to mankind.

Check your complacent egos boys!

After you've sacrificed your third virgin though it all gets a bit work-a-day... — Isaac

The Kanban board is just depressing...

The naivety of the petty low grade scientist who thinks he works for some kind of "truth" and service to mankind.

Check your complacent egos boys! — Protagoras

Who are you even railing at?

On the bus home from work this evening, the guy in front and to the left of me, who was sat alone, stood up and pulled his trousers down. I mention him because, at the time, he was the most crazy-seeming person I'd encountered today.

@Kenosha Kid

You drunk again punchy?

No, hungover. It necessarily alternates.

@Kenosha Kid
Curb your alcohol palooka.

I'm all about sacrifice and teamwork. I'll lay off the vodka martinis as encouragement for you to ease off on the wild BS. My liver and your argumentation shall prosper together. Deal?

@Kenosha Kid
Sacrifice and teamwork my ass!

Paycheck is your motivation is it not?

Plus the fake esteem of "science".

No deal! Ones argumentation is tip top!

You can drink to that glib one!

You can drink to that glib one! — Protagoras

Are you deaf? I'm rocking a hangover, dummy. Although a mojito maybe...

Paycheck is your motivation is it not? — Protagoras

It'd be an odd way to go if it were. Do you know how much the financial sector pays for physicists? Curiosity is the name of the game. You seem like you like to start with surety and dismiss the contrary. It might be difficult to explain it to you.

@Kenosha Kid

You are having troubling reading my posts,the meaning and context. Mr sober.

So your a minimum wage scientist!! I'm sure for the love of science you would work for free.

You say curiosity,it's really fear.

I smell virtue signalling and a fear of the confidence of others.

You seem like you like to start with surety and dismiss the contrary. — Kenosha Kid

You say curiosity,it's really fear.

I smell virtue signalling and a fear of the confidence of others. — Protagoras

@Kenosha Kid

The last taboo.

The taboo against confidence!

You hold on to your uncertainty....for now.

So your a minimum wage scientist!! I'm sure for the love of science you would work for free. — Protagoras

Wasn’t Einstein a patent clerk when he developed
special relativity?

“ For Einstein, the patent office was "that worldly cloister where I hatched my most beautiful ideas.”

@Joshs

The amount of nonsense and misinformation written about Einstein is legendary...

By todays scientism logic he would have been chased off this forum as a lunatic anyway. You need degrees,phds,white coats and to worship newton or the current paradigm to be able to be in our club of science.

I’m an independent writer in philosophy and psychology. I only have a masters degree and yet my work is accepted in academic journals.

By todays scientism logic he would have been chased off this forum as a lunatic anyway. You need degrees,phds,white coats and to worship newton or the current paradigm to be able to be in our club of science. — Protagoras

btw, I thought you were a realist? It sounds like you’re endorsing Kuhnian science here. How would you describe the nature of scientific progress? Is it cumulative ?

The amount of nonsense and misinformation written about Einstein is legendary... — Protagoras

Are you saying Einstein didn’t work at the parent office when he began generating special relativity?

@Joshs
With respect,philosophy is not stringent like science.

Which kind of psychology do you write on?

Neuroscience/experimental or other?

I don't endorse kuhn,I'm saying science has dominant paradigms,which are very hard to overturn.

I'm saying nearly everything we have heard about Albert Is mainly prooganda.

I'm saying nearly everything we have heard about Albert Is mainly prooganda. — Protagoras

Like what. Please give examples. Otherwise I might take you for a conspiracy monger. For someone who’s big on empirical truth and correctness you seem to throw out a lot of unsubstantiated claims. If you have specific evidence that he didn’t create special relativity while working in a patent office , let’s have it. Otherwise don’t waste my time or the time of other readers of this site.

@Joshs
Listen guy. Don't pigeon hole me or try to patronise me.

If your too anal and think I need to show proof of every bit of malevolence in historical matters then you keep believing the narratives dealt to you by the powers that be.

You stick to your comfortable post modernist narratives.

As if I owe you a detailed spoon feeding of how to asses narratives. Do your own research and use your own brain not relying on academics to justify your every viewpoint

And the irony of ",conspiracy monger" when you read deleuze,Nietzsche,foucault et al and say there is a variety of perspectives.

Human all too.human!

You'll get banned if you continue like this.

@Olivier5

Well,if people are that double standardish that they can dish out strawman criticism and not take it back then so be it.
Cheers for the concern though.